DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr (US 2023/0322281 A1) in view of WO 97/08896.
Referring to Claim 1: Mohr teaches a cable car (2a) with a number of cable car stations (3a) and with a number of cable car vehicles (F) which can be moved between the number of cable car stations by means of a hoisting rope (Fig. 1), wherein a control unit (6) is provided for controlling the cable car (Para. [0064]), comprising:
a detection apparatus (9) for detecting a measurement variable of an airborne sound in at least one cable car station (Para. [0052] and [0056]);
a classification unit (10) configured to identify at least one defined characteristic variable (K1) from at least one of the measurement variable and a variable derived therefrom (Para. [0049] and [0052]); and
wherein the control unit (6) is configured to operate the cable car in a defined reduced power operating mode when a defined characteristic variable is identified (Para. [0059]).
Mohr does not specifically teach that the classification unit identifies a defined safety relevant sound, nor does Mohr teach operating in a safety operating mode based on the defined safety relevant sound. Rather, Mohr teaches that the characteristic variable K1, determined by sensor unit 9, is used to determine the number of people in the boarding area E (Para. [0048], [0049] and [0052]), and that the conveyor speed may be reduced (Para. [0013]) or stopped completely based on the characteristic variable K1 (Para. [0014]). Examiner notes that Mohr also teaches the following background information for cable cars, “A change of the conveyor speed is generally not intended and is performed at most for safety reasons. For example, the conveyor speed is reduced, if a person falls in the boarding area, due to weather conditions or for technical reasons. The reduction of the conveyor speed is usually performed manually by the operating personnel.” (Para. [0004]).
However, WO 97/08896 teaches an open area security system for use at a train station platform (709) (Fig. 7) (page 16, second paragraph), wherein microphones (721) are used to detect a safety relevant sound event, such as a woman screaming (Fig. 12), classify that safety relevant sound event (page 1, first paragraph) using an acoustic signal processor (110) (page 8, last paragraph), and automatically responding appropriately based on the scenario and event data stored in a memory table (page 22, last two paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to use a classification unit to identify a defined safety relevant sound and respond automatically, as taught by WO 97/08896, with a safety operating mode, including slowing or stopping the conveyor, in order to protect boarding passengers from dangerous scenarios and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Mohr further teaches the cable car, wherein the detection apparatus (9) is configured in the at least one cable car station and wherein the detection apparatus is configured to detect the measured variable in the area of a platform of the at least one cable car station (3a) (Para. [0048-0049]) (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 3: While Mohr teaches that the sensor unit 9 can be a microphone (Para. [0052]), Mohr does not specifically teach that the measurement variable comprises a sound pressure or the derived variable comprises a sound pressure level. However, WO 97/08896 teaches an open area security system for use at a train station platform (709) (Fig. 7) (page 16, second paragraph), wherein microphones (721) are used to detect a safety relevant sound event, such as a woman screaming, based on the sound pressure level (Fig. 12) (page 21, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to use sound pressure as the measurement variable, as taught by WO 97/08896, in order to distinguish safety-relevant sound events from typical vehicle inbound/outbound sounds (see WO 97/08896, page 21, last paragraph) and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 4: While Mohr teaches that the sensor unit 9 can be a microphone (Para. [0052]), Mohr does not specifically teach that the classification unit is configured to generate a spectrogram from at least one of: the detected measurement variable and the variable derived therefrom; and wherein the classification unit is further configured to determine the at least one defined safety-relevant sound event from the spectrogram. However, WO 97/08896 teaches an open area security system for use at a train station platform (709) (Fig. 7) (page 16, second paragraph), wherein the classification unit (110) is configured to generate a spectrogram (Figs. 11-13) from at least one of: the detected measurement variable and the variable derived therefrom; and wherein the classification unit is further configured to determine the at least one defined safety-relevant sound event from the spectrogram (Fig. 12) (page 21, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to use a spectrogram to classify sound events, as taught by WO 97/08896, in order to distinguish safety-relevant sound events from typical vehicle inbound/outbound sounds (see WO 97/08896, page 21, last paragraph) and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 5: While Mohr teaches that the sensor unit 9 can be a microphone (Para. [0052]), Mohr does not specifically teach a classification model in the classification unit configured to determine the at least one defined safety-relevant sound event from the spectrogram. However, WO 97/08896 teaches an open area security system for use at a train station platform (709) (Fig. 7) (page 16, second paragraph), wherein the classification unit (110) is configured to generate a spectrogram (Figs. 11-13), and a classification model in the classification unit is configured to determine the at least one defined safety-relevant sound event from the spectrogram (Fig. 12) (page 21, last three paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to use a spectrogram to classify sound events using a model, as taught by WO 97/08896, in order to distinguish safety-relevant sound events from typical vehicle inbound/outbound sounds (see WO 97/08896, page 21, last paragraph) and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 8: Mohr does not specifically teach that the classification model comprises an artificial intelligence model. However, WO 97/08896 teaches an open area security system for use at a train station platform (709) (Fig. 7) (page 16, second paragraph), wherein the classification unit (110) is configured “to apply complex adaptive processing (e.g., artificial intelligence) systems for recording and learning typical and atypical events that may occur in an open area protected by the system” (page 4, fourth paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to classify sound events using a an AI model, as taught by WO 97/08896, in order to distinguish atypical safety-relevant sound events from typical vehicle inbound/outbound sounds (see WO 97/08896, page 21, last paragraph) and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 9: Mohr does not specifically teach that the at least one defined safety-related sound event comprises a defined characteristic cry of a person, including at least one of a cry for help, a pain-related cry, an aggressive cry, and a fearful cry. However, WO 97/08896 teaches an open area security system for use at a train station platform (709) (Fig. 7) (page 16, second paragraph), wherein the classification unit (110) is configured safety-related sound event comprises a defined characteristic cry of a person (“woman screaming”) (Fig. 12), including at least one of a cry for help, a pain-related cry, an aggressive cry, and a fearful cry (“screaming prior to a pistol firing”) (page 21, last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to define the characteristic cry of a person as taught by WO 97/08896, in order to distinguish atypical safety-relevant sound events from typical vehicle inbound/outbound sounds (see WO 97/08896, page 21, last paragraph) and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Mohr further teaches the cable car, wherein the cable car further comprises a drive apparatus (5a) for driving the cable car vehicles (Para. [0033]) (Fig. 1);
wherein the control unit (6, 7a) is configured to control the drive apparatus (Para. [0059-0061]) in the reduced power operating mode; and
wherein the reduced power operating mode comprises at least one of:
stopping the drive (5a) of the cable car vehicles (Para. [0014]);
reducing a conveyor speed of the cable car vehicles (Para. [0013]); and
Mohr does not specifically teach the claimed safety operating mode or generating an alarm signal. However, WO 97/08896 teaches an open area security system for use at a train station platform (709) (Fig. 7) (page 16, second paragraph), wherein microphones (721) are used to detect a safety relevant sound event, such as a woman screaming (Fig. 12), and trigger an alarm (130) (Pages 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to use a classification unit to identify a defined safety relevant sound and respond automatically, as taught by WO 97/08896, with a safety operating mode and alarm, including slowing or stopping the conveyor, in order to protect boarding passengers from dangerous scenarios and thereby enhance safety with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr in view of WO 97/08896 and Boghossian et al. (US 8,305,441).
Referring to Claim 6: Mohr does not teach that the classification model is configured to determine a confidence value representative of a probability of the presence of the at least one defined safety-relevant sound event, and the control unit is configured to operate the cable car in the safety operating mode if the confidence value exceeds a threshold value. However, Boghossian does teaches a data processing apparatus for use in a train station (Col. 2, lines 1-4), wherein the classification model is configured to determine a confidence value (“confidence parameters” or “confidence settings”) representative of a probability of the presence of the at least one defined safety-relevant sound event and triggering an alarm based on that confidence (Col. 26, lines 64-67) (Col. 24, lines 6-17) (Col. 9, lines 31-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Mohr to use confidence values, as taught by Boghossian, in order to respond appropriately to a safety relevant sound only when there is sufficient confidence that the response should be triggered and thereby reduce false alarms with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 11-16 and 18-20, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1-6 and 8-10, respectively, inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in claims 7 and 17, including “an analysis model configured to analyze a detection performance of the classification model, and wherein the threshold value is set, at least in part, as a function of the analysis model.” Adding such an analysis model to analyze detection performance would require in improper degree of hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615A